EVE Search - Tracking Disruptors [Devs.. you forgot something]

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tracking Disruptors [Devs.. you forgot something]

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alek Row Minmatar Silent Step	Posted - 2008.02.06 15:41:00 - [301] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Dude sure you can boost TPs if we cut web range bonus to half. You clearly have no idea how powerful ranged webs are as ew. This is called balance. You couldnt give a ship ecm + nos ew bonus either for example or web + nos. You are obviously just trying to overpower the minmatar recons. Oh please, stop being such a parrot. It really dependes on the way TPs are improved. It's possible to improve TPs without destroying balance, even with the current web bonus on Minmatar Recons. What you are saying is something like this: Now that Amarr have TDs at a good state, there is NO REASON to improve Nos/Neuts in Amarr recons, right? wohooo cap boosters forever, or since TDs only work for turrents there is still some margin to improve them? Depends on the way they are improved. Same thing for TPs, imagine that TPs had a (really really really) stupid bonus like: Every minute painted target will loose control of his drones for 3 seconds, making the drones flee at random directions (eerr better make capital ships immune to the effect hehe). Would this make Minmatar Recons overpowered? Even if the effect was only 3 seconds/per minute (a bit more since the drones would take time to come back to the target). And since I'm no balance diva, if this is overpowered just replace it by other stupid bonus that affects slighy one weapon type for a short amount of time, take your pick. There always a way to improve modules without breaking balance (in last case creating/changing other modules/rigs to act as counters). Or don't you want Amarr Recons Nos/Neuts working at better levels without the excessive use of cap boosters ? (I'm assuming there is still a problem with Nos/Neuts on Amarr recons) Great, we want TPs working too, and they really could use some sort of defense EW against one weapon type per example. At the moment Minmatar Recons have one very good Web Bonus with great range, and one terrible TP EW with no defense capabilities, Ammar have a "not so good" NOS/Neut Bonus with great range and nice TD EW with defense/offense capabilites against one weapon type. Just stating "Minmatar Recons would be unbalanced if they improve TPs" it's an imagination critical failure. There is always a way :-P
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.06 17:09:00 - [302] I still don't see why increasing Minmatar ranged DPS is much of an issue, Amarr already have a significantly longer range using long range ammos and do not worry about falloff: For example: New Zealot (3 HS) = 456.25 DPS with 34km optimal and 5km falloff Vagabond (1 'Falloff' TE, 2 Gyro) = 173.5 DPS with 2.7 optimal and 26.45km falloff when at optimal + falloff, 254.5 after drones. DPS within optimal (closing situation) is 347, 428 after drones. A Vagabond does less DPS than a Zealot at 2.7km than a Zealot at 34km, a good amount of which is drone-based. Both EM and EXP tend to be the lowest resists across all ships averaged according to killboard datamining. A Vagabond using Hail is doing 522 DPS including drones at 1.4km optimal while a Zealot using it's T2 high damage ammo is doing 581.25 DPS at 11km. Vagabond (3 Gyro) = 195 DPS with 2.7 optimal and 23km falloff when at optimal + falloff. At the range of TE + 2 Gyro (2.7km+26.45km) it is doing 165.75 DPS (5.75 less), but has 390 at 2.7km, 471 after drones. This is a difference of 43 more than TE + 2 Gyro. The situations under 10km that involve a webber, the 3Gyro option performs better than TE/2Gyro by a large amount when tracking is minimal, but the TE/2Gyro does more DPS against situations where both targets are web-free and moving at high speeds. Overall, the difference between the two possibilities if falloff was to be introduced onto tracking enhancers would not really be overpowered because of the reduction of close-ranged killing power (the drawback). Long ranged DPS would be increased by a tiny fraction, but also promote variety in setups and provide a small counter to the effects of a falloff tracking disruptor. Feel free to test it out yourself with the online tracking/dps guide this website provides. Furthermore, claiming that the Vagabond would have an imbalanced DPS at range when compared to the new Zealot (and saying it is fine) seems very very biased considering the massive difference in damage output and range between the two ships.
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.06 17:28:00 - [303] I don't think most people actually understand what it means to fight in falloff, Ariel :) We can explain and explain, but people will always EFT it and say 'it says 300 dps, and EFT is Eve Fighting Tactician so it must be right!' _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:22:00 - [304] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko (a) Falloff rigs (and modules would be) are stacking penalized, so fitting rigs + TCs with falloff boost wouldn't be worth it. (b) Excuse me, so I have to rig my ships to get the bonus which others can get via tracking computers? WTF? a) People would fit other rigs... So it's fine if Amarr can fit other rigs but Minmatar mustn't for some reason? Originally by: Lyria Skydancer b) You already have the advantage of ammo switch without major impact on your range. You cant have it all. - Not true (both T2 ammos have major impact on your range). - This is a disadvantage for any ships trying to shoot at longer range, beacuse it's also quite impossible to extend that range to the same extent other races' T1 ammos can, essentially nullifying itself as a distinct advantage (since it has both a positive side and a negative side). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:28:00 - [305] Originally by: Ariel Dawn I still don't see why increasing Minmatar ranged DPS is much of an issue, Amarr already have a significantly longer range using long range ammos and do not worry about falloff: For example: New Zealot (3 HS) = 456.25 DPS with 34km optimal and 5km falloff Vagabond (1 'Falloff' TE, 2 Gyro) = 173.5 DPS with 2.7 optimal and 26.45km falloff when at optimal + falloff, 254.5 after drones. DPS within optimal (closing situation) is 347, 428 after drones. A Vagabond does less DPS than a Zealot at 2.7km than a Zealot at 34km, a good amount of which is drone-based. Both EM and EXP tend to be the lowest resists across all ships averaged according to killboard datamining. A Vagabond using Hail is doing 522 DPS including drones at 1.4km optimal while a Zealot using it's T2 high damage ammo is doing 581.25 DPS at 11km. Vagabond (3 Gyro) = 195 DPS with 2.7 optimal and 23km falloff when at optimal + falloff. At the range of TE + 2 Gyro (2.7km+26.45km) it is doing 165.75 DPS (5.75 less), but has 390 at 2.7km, 471 after drones. This is a difference of 43 more than TE + 2 Gyro. The situations under 10km that involve a webber, the 3Gyro option performs better than TE/2Gyro by a large amount when tracking is minimal, but the TE/2Gyro does more DPS against situations where both targets are web-free and moving at high speeds. Overall, the difference between the two possibilities if falloff was to be introduced onto tracking enhancers would not really be overpowered because of the reduction of close-ranged killing power (the drawback). Long ranged DPS would be increased by a tiny fraction, but also promote variety in setups and provide a small counter to the effects of a falloff tracking disruptor. Feel free to test it out yourself with the online tracking/dps guide this website provides. Furthermore, claiming that the Vagabond would have an imbalanced DPS at range when compared to the new Zealot (and saying it is fine) seems very very biased considering the massive difference in damage output and range between the two ships. No, no, no. Dont compare Zealot to a Vagabond. They are completely different. Zealot ONLY has its guns as weapons and while fitting for gank cant even fit a moderate tank on it and is pretty much a glass cannon that goes 1700m/s. It dominates mid range with pulses, yes and its supposed to. Vagabond has very high speed as tank and evasive protection and also has drones so its protected against interceptor tackling. If you think vagabond should be doing any dps near the zealot in mid range you are dreaming. Vagabond is fine as it is now and Zealot will be fine with 5 turrets aswell. This minmatar whine isnt called for and is only up for display to promote stupidly overpowered boosts to projectiles while trying to disguise it as a "fix". No, you wont get it. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:41:00 - [306] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, no, no. Dont compare Zealot to a Vagabond. They are completely different. Zealot ONLY has its guns as weapons and while fitting for gank cant even fit a moderate tank on it and is pretty much a glass cannon that goes 1700m/s. It dominates mid range with pulses, yes and its supposed to. Vagabond has very high speed as tank and evasive protection and also has drones so its protected against interceptor tackling. If you think vagabond should be doing any dps near the zealot in mid range you are dreaming. Vagabond is fine as it is now and Zealot will be fine with 5 turrets aswell. This minmatar whine isnt called for and is only up for display to promote stupidly overpowered boosts to projectiles while trying to disguise it as a "fix". No, you wont get it. Shut up. Your blatant anti-Minmatar trolling under the guise of "fixing" Amarr and "balance" is getting old. Anytime anybody suggests something that doesn't benefit Amarr more than every other race, you and the rest of the whine brigade scream bloody murder that the devs would dare show any love to any of the other races. Guess what? The rest of us had to listen to you constantly ***** and moan even after the Devs said they were looking into Amarr problem. And yet when we want something that isn't even remotely overpowered, despite all your assertions to the contrary, we can't have it?
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:55:00 - [307] Originally by: Dianeces Shut up. Your blatant anti-Minmatar trolling under the guise of "fixing" Amarr and "balance" is getting old. Anytime anybody suggests something that doesn't benefit Amarr more than every other race, you and the rest of the whine brigade scream bloody murder that the devs would dare show any love to any of the other races. Guess what? The rest of us had to listen to you constantly ***** and moan even after the Devs said they were looking into Amarr problem. And yet when we want something that isn't even remotely overpowered, despite all your assertions to the contrary, we can't have it? You already have rigs that boost your damage and range without stacking with gyros, so for the sake of balance we wouldnt like you to have additional damage mods in mids and lows in forms of TDs and TEs. Yeah it would be overpowered. Dont disguise it as something else please. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:58:00 - [308] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, no, no. Dont compare Zealot to a Vagabond. They are completely different. Zealot ONLY has its guns as weapons and while fitting for gank cant even fit a moderate tank on it and is pretty much a glass cannon that goes 1700m/s. It dominates mid range with pulses, yes and its supposed to. Vagabond has very high speed as tank and evasive protection and also has drones so its protected against interceptor tackling. If you think vagabond should be doing any dps near the zealot in mid range you are dreaming. Vagabond is fine as it is now and Zealot will be fine with 5 turrets aswell. This minmatar whine isnt called for and is only up for display to promote stupidly overpowered boosts to projectiles while trying to disguise it as a "fix". No, you wont get it. Basically anti-Minmatar trolling and a load of rubbish all rolled in one post. Also 'supposed to dominate mid-range' and 'does more DPS at practically any range' are two very different things. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:01:00 - [309] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, no, no. Dont compare Zealot to a Vagabond. They are completely different. Zealot ONLY has its guns as weapons and while fitting for gank cant even fit a moderate tank on it and is pretty much a glass cannon that goes 1700m/s. It dominates mid range with pulses, yes and its supposed to. Vagabond has very high speed as tank and evasive protection and also has drones so its protected against interceptor tackling. If you think vagabond should be doing any dps near the zealot in mid range you are dreaming. Vagabond is fine as it is now and Zealot will be fine with 5 turrets aswell. This minmatar whine isnt called for and is only up for display to promote stupidly overpowered boosts to projectiles while trying to disguise it as a "fix". No, you wont get it. Basically anti-Minmatar trolling and a load of rubbish all rolled in one post. Also 'supposed to dominate mid-range' and 'does more DPS at practically any range' are two very different things. You complaining about range vs dps? Go compare the new eagle to the vagabond/zealot and you might have a point... Also Im pretty sure there have already been alot of points and calculations made to show you that TDs/TEs affecting fall off is a bad idea balance wise, you choose to ignore these and thats not my fault. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:07:00 - [310] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Dianeces You already have rigs that boost your damage and range without stacking with gyros, so for the sake of balance we wouldnt like you to have additional damage mods in mids and lows in forms of TDs and TEs. Yeah it would be overpowered. Dont disguise it as something else please. +Falloff doesn't boost damage, it boosts the range where you can apply (part) of that damage. Similarly, +optimal boosts the range where a laserboat can apply its damage, only the envelope is different, ie you gain a considerably higher benefit for a shorter range band. As I presented above, a nonrange bonused HPL with scorch will gain a relative damage increase between 24km and 34km from fitting a TE instead of a HS. At 30km It'll do a whopping three times more damage with 2HS+TE fit instead of 3HS. As you can see, you already have this bonus you think will be overpowered for minmatar.

Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:25:00 - [311] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Dude sure you can boost TPs if we cut web range bonus to half. You clearly have no idea how powerful ranged webs are as ew. This is called balance. You couldnt give a ship ecm + nos ew bonus either for example or web + nos. You are obviously just trying to overpower the minmatar recons. You clearly have no clue on the subject. I gave ample reasons above why you're wrong. I coincidentally also covered the case why the relation between target painters and webs is rather unique compared to the examples you gave. Hint, 'balance' is not the word that describes that relation. You could try actually addressing the points I made instead of this pointless anti-minmatar/pro-amarr armwaving.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:28:00 - [312] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Dianeces Shut up. Your blatant anti-Minmatar trolling under the guise of "fixing" Amarr and "balance" is getting old. Anytime anybody suggests something that doesn't benefit Amarr more than every other race, you and the rest of the whine brigade scream bloody murder that the devs would dare show any love to any of the other races. Guess what? The rest of us had to listen to you constantly ***** and moan even after the Devs said they were looking into Amarr problem. And yet when we want something that isn't even remotely overpowered, despite all your assertions to the contrary, we can't have it? You already have rigs that boost your damage and range without stacking with gyros, so for the sake of balance we wouldnt like you to have additional damage mods in mids and lows in forms of TDs and TEs. Yeah it would be overpowered. Dont disguise it as something else please. So what you're are saying is: Projectiles can get extra range using rigs, so using TC to get more falloff would be overpowered. This means: Pulses can get extra range using rigs, so using TC to get more optimal would be overpowered. From this we can conclude: TC have to get their optimal bonus removed for the sake of balance. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Patro	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:34:00 - [313] Patro aggre with denno and poke trigos... U really are a shame for amarr :(
Veryez	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:43:00 - [314] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 06/02/2008 14:34:19 Dude sure you can boost TPs if we cut web range bonus to half. You clearly have no idea how powerful ranged webs are as ew. This is called balance. You couldnt give a ship ecm + nos ew bonus either for example or web + nos. You are obviously just trying to overpower the minmatar recons. As seen in the advent of Marauders, TP's are better on Caldari ships then on minmatar ships (or didn't you notice that the Golem gets the racial minmatar EW bonus). Webs are fine as they are and TP's are pretty weak except in certain situations. So I believe a far better solution would be removing all TP bonuses from minmatar recons/cruisers and giving instead either 1) A 5% speed boost per level (which is the only minmatar advantage) or 2) A 7.5% agility bonus per level (fitting the hit and run concept) or 3) a tracking bonus on the rapier and a falloff bonus on the Huginn (and the beli should get the web bonus). I believe that the changes will turn TD's into the 'new sensor boosters', and would prefer them to be left alone and amarr recons getting the bonus of reducing falloff and optimal (rather than every ship getting this advantage). Lastly I can't believe the amount of whining over asking for a script for tracking computers to increase falloff. Seriously who uses falloff to consistently fight in other than minmatar? This along with the reduction in explosive shield resistance (since almost every t2 minmatar ship shield tanks) make this upcoming patch much less of a boost to amarr, but a significant nerf to minmatar. But then again why not, CCP always wanted playing minmatar to be playing 'hard mode'.
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:47:00 - [315] Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 06/02/2008 19:50:25 Originally by: Lyria "Jonny JoJo"* Skydancer* You already have rigs that boost your damage and range without stacking with gyros, so for the sake of balance we wouldnt like you to have additional damage mods in mids and lows in forms of TDs and TEs. Yeah it would be overpowered. Dont disguise it as something else please. Amarr already has rigs that boost their range(Energy Locus Coordinator I) too. And optimal is more effective than falloff. Overpowered, I guess, according to you. Also, there are no rigs which boost damage that doesn't have a stacking penalty with gyrostabs. Unless you're referring to +tracking such as the Energy Metastasis Adjuster I (for lasers) and the projectile one. Don't disguise whines and nerfs as something else :( _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:56:00 - [316] Edited by: Dianeces on 06/02/2008 19:58:09 Edited by: Dianeces on 06/02/2008 19:56:09 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, no, no. Dont compare Zealot to a Vagabond. They are completely different. Zealot ONLY has its guns as weapons and while fitting for gank cant even fit a moderate tank on it and is pretty much a glass cannon that goes 1700m/s. It dominates mid range with pulses, yes and its supposed to. Vagabond has very high speed as tank and evasive protection and also has drones so its protected against interceptor tackling. If you think vagabond should be doing any dps near the zealot in mid range you are dreaming. Vagabond is fine as it is now and Zealot will be fine with 5 turrets aswell. This minmatar whine isnt called for and is only up for display to promote stupidly overpowered boosts to projectiles while trying to disguise it as a "fix". No, you wont get it. Basically anti-Minmatar trolling and a load of rubbish all rolled in one post. Also 'supposed to dominate mid-range' and 'does more DPS at practically any range' are two very different things. You complaining about range vs dps? Go compare the new eagle to the vagabond/zealot and you might have a point... Also Im pretty sure there have already been alot of points and calculations made to show you that TDs/TEs affecting fall off is a bad idea balance wise, you choose to ignore these and thats not my fault. Would this be the same math that has convinced you ECCM is totally useless? Or is it a different type of alternative math? 2+2=5, amirite? Edit: Failquoting ITT
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:19:00 - [317] Originally by: Dianeces Would this be the same math that has convinced you ECCM is totally useless? Or is it a different type of alternative math? 2+2=5, amirite? Edit: Failquoting ITT There have been enough threads about all this with alot of calculations to prove it. If you havent looked into it, dont understand it or simply ignore it, Im not going to be arsed to repeat it. Ill just repeat the summary and thats what Ive told you. Go ahead troll me... -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:22:00 - [318] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Dianeces Would this be the same math that has convinced you ECCM is totally useless? Or is it a different type of alternative math? 2+2=5, amirite? Edit: Failquoting ITT There have been enough threads about all this with alot of calculations to prove it. If you havent looked into it, dont understand it or simply ignore it, Im not going to be arsed to repeat it. Ill just repeat the summary and thats what Ive told you. Go ahead troll me... Thank you, I think I will.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:27:00 - [319] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, no, no. Dont compare Zealot to a Vagabond. They are completely different. Zealot ONLY has its guns as weapons and while fitting for gank cant even fit a moderate tank on it and is pretty much a glass cannon that goes 1700m/s. It dominates mid range with pulses, yes and its supposed to. Vagabond has very high speed as tank and evasive protection and also has drones so its protected against interceptor tackling. If you think vagabond should be doing any dps near the zealot in mid range you are dreaming. Vagabond is fine as it is now and Zealot will be fine with 5 turrets aswell. This minmatar whine isnt called for and is only up for display to promote stupidly overpowered boosts to projectiles while trying to disguise it as a "fix". No, you wont get it. Ahahahahahaha! A Zealot can nano-fit and be flown as a Vagabond with a similar tank, less speed, and far more DPS than the Vagabond can possibly put out. The fact that the Vagabond is faster can be taken into consideration, but when nano-setup all that matters is being faster than the other guy. Furthurmore, it does not have a vulnerable weapon system like drones compromising a good chunk of it's DPS, and it can be fit to have a strong tank along with it's damage in a standard non-nano fit. I never said that the Vagabond should be doing more DPS than the Zealot. But when your Zealot outdamages a Vagabond at 34km optimal versus a Vagabond at 25km by almost a FACTOR OF TWO, and then complain how increasing the Vagabond's range would completely imbalance it. You, my friend, are full of ****.
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:28:00 - [320] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ill just repeat the summary and thats what Ive told you. Go ahead troll me... Actually, since we're on the topic, can you go ahead and parrot 2+2=5 for me from now on? Since you already do that with nonsense, this shouldn't be too much of a leap.

Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:33:00 - [321] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer You complaining about range vs dps? Go compare the new eagle to the vagabond/zealot and you might have a point... Also Im pretty sure there have already been alot of points and calculations made to show you that TDs/TEs affecting fall off is a bad idea balance wise, you choose to ignore these and thats not my fault. I'm complaining about range AND DPS at the same time. They completely ignore the fact that Gallente (somewhat), Caldari (much more!) and specifically Amarr have much better options at modifying their range (and DPS!) with TCs/TEs ; this used to be offset by the fact you could TD Amarr range very effectively and Caldari/Gallente range a less effectively. Meaning, it used to be balanced. Right now, it's not balanced, at all. So, boost TCs/TEs to fix falloff as well, nerf TDs to hell on all unbonused ships and give amarr recons/etc a bigger bonus. You are just trolling, of course, so I can quite expect you to say 'OMG, it was already explained (using totally false logic and no correct math given), read the thread'. So go troll Ships and Modules once more with your anti-Minmatar drivel ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:44:00 - [322] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer There have been enough threads about all this with alot of calculations to prove it. Actually unless my memory fails me,I haven't yet seen any real effort by anyone to bring out any numbers to support the claim that falloff mod on TE/TC would overpower acs, and neither has anyone really tried to refute my calculations which seem to point towards completely opposite direction. Perhaps you could provide a link or maybe even look at the numbers I posted in this thread and or explain why they are wrong or meaningless or refute the conclusion I made based on them?
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 22:09:00 - [323] Originally by: Cpt Branko They completely ignore the fact that Gallente (somewhat), Caldari (much more!) and specifically Amarr have much better options at modifying their range (and DPS!) with TCs/TEs ; this used to be offset by the fact you could TD Amarr range very effectively and Caldari/Gallente range a less effectively. Meaning, it used to be balanced. That is why minmatar ships always are the fastest, sometimes with rediculous amounts, faster then other ships in their class. So they can dictate range. Minmatar are jack of all trades and the AC fall off situation is something that has a good and bad side but its balanced. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 22:10:00 - [324] Originally by: Cpt Branko Right now, it's not balanced, at all. So, boost TCs/TEs to fix falloff as well, nerf TDs to hell on all unbonused ships and give amarr recons/etc a bigger bonus. Yes, this really needs to be done. And if its done this whole problem wont even be noticed except the rare cases when you encounter some amarr recon. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Alek Row Minmatar Silent Step	Posted - 2008.02.06 22:52:00 - [325] Edited by: Alek Row on 06/02/2008 22:52:33 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi (...) My opinion is that we should have a counter to the TD changes, but I don't know anymore if scripts are the answer, TEs should have a new property, something like x% more falloff when disrupted (and only when disrupted). And now some random values for what I understood: - When you have an optimal of 15km, your dps is x. If you use a TC (optimal script) your optimal goes to 25km and your dps will still be x, the dps at 15km will be inferior to x, since you're bellow optimal. - Falloff is completelly different, your falloff is 20km, if you shoot at 15km your dps will be x, when you increase the falloff to 25km your dps at 15km will always be superior to x, I don't know the percentage, but the more you extend the falloff line more your dps will increase when you shoot at 15km. ACs still are considered short range weapons, some falloff bonus and rigs can turn ACs in certain ships into effective medium range weapons. You know that Amarr are the queens of Medium range and they don't want to see nobody entering their domain, even when the Minmatar DPS in those ships that fight in falloff is always inferior of what we see in EFT (EFT only calculates optimal Dps if I'm not mistaken). Just to end... Rigs are not an easy switchable counter, period. TE's should at least atenuate to a certain extent TDs falloff strenght when disrupted. Now someone care to explain why this shouldn't happen? And no, this question is not for you Lyria Skydancer, sorry but I can't stop seeing you as a Goum/Aramendel wannabe (and a really bad one).
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.06 23:53:00 - [326] Edited by: Magazaki on 06/02/2008 23:54:21 Now, then, I can accept any and all arguments that say boost tracking computers/enhancers because they need a counter. But asking for a nerf to tracking disruptors, before they even got a boost? For crying out loud, right now they SUCK. They'll be usable. If you wanna cry "nerf", at least wait till they're tested. It's not as if the only thing you will encounter is tracking disruptors. Get real. They will be more effective against some ship, well, GOOD. I'm not against the existence of a counter to them either. But asking for a pre-nerf? No way... Not until they are tried and tested. And the fact that they will be effective against Vagabonds in particular is not a reason to nerf them for crying out loud. In fact, the fact that a few select ships are practically immune to this optimal range decrease and also the fact that TD's are underpowered as hell at the moment is rather the reason that they're getting this good, called for, boost. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.07 01:11:00 - [327] Originally by: Magazaki Edited by: Magazaki on 06/02/2008 23:54:21 Now, then, I can accept any and all arguments that say boost tracking computers/enhancers because they need a counter. But asking for a nerf to tracking disruptors, before they even got a boost? For crying out loud, right now they SUCK. They'll be usable. If you wanna cry "nerf", at least wait till they're tested. It's not as if the only thing you will encounter is tracking disruptors. Get real. They will be more effective against some ship, well, GOOD. I'm not against the existence of a counter to them either. But asking for a pre-nerf? No way... Not until they are tried and tested. And the fact that they will be effective against Vagabonds in particular is not a reason to nerf them for crying out loud. In fact, the fact that a few select ships are practically immune to this optimal range decrease and also the fact that TD's are underpowered as hell at the moment is rather the reason that they're getting this good, called for, boost. Nice reading comprehension. People have been talking about introducing falloff on modules to be able to counter the effects of falloff on TDs, not to remove the falloff from tracking disruptors.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.02.07 02:55:00 - [328] Originally by: Aramendel Ceptor wolfpacks attack soliatry targets, not equal gangs (due to obvious reasons). They will simply swarm and kill you, 1-2 TDs will not be of much use vs them. With his guns. 5 war2 and his missile launcher will kill it easily. EW frigs cannot speedtank drone efficiently and have no real conventional tank. I did? Quote please. I would be highly surprised by this considering I actually did multiple times what you "advice" me to do. Hell, I even got myself a bunch of cosmos maximum efficiency TDs like 6 month ago to see if I could make them viaable if I maximize their efficiency. I couldn't. rubish! ppl who have balls fight equal groups (for obvious reasons) even in friggangs. dont speculate about pvp situations u never took part in. a crucifier does not die to a vagabond, its 5 warrior II nor a single launcher if u have half a brain. do not speculate on pvp if u dont know how to setup ur ships correctly or fight as a part of a team. u bought cosmos tds and didnt had success using em. u know that the price does not determines performance and u also know that a module alone does not decide a battle. what were ur exact expectations form ur investment? Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.07 03:23:00 - [329] Originally by: Reto Originally by: Aramendel Ceptor wolfpacks attack soliatry targets, not equal gangs (due to obvious reasons). They will simply swarm and kill you, 1-2 TDs will not be of much use vs them. With his guns. 5 war2 and his missile launcher will kill it easily. EW frigs cannot speedtank drone efficiently and have no real conventional tank. I did? Quote please. I would be highly surprised by this considering I actually did multiple times what you "advice" me to do. Hell, I even got myself a bunch of cosmos maximum efficiency TDs like 6 month ago to see if I could make them viaable if I maximize their efficiency. I couldn't. rubish! ppl who have balls fight equal groups (for obvious reasons) even in friggangs. dont speculate about pvp situations u never took part in. a crucifier does not die to a vagabond, its 5 warrior II nor a single launcher if u have half a brain. do not speculate on pvp if u dont know how to setup ur ships correctly or fight as a part of a team. u bought cosmos tds and didnt had success using em. u know that the price does not determines performance and u also know that a module alone does not decide a battle. what were ur exact expectations form ur investment? Pray tell, what magical crucifier setup survives 5 warrior IIs?
haq aan Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.02.07 04:38:00 - [330] Trigos Trilobi/Alek Row/Ariel Dawn and Dianeges, thank u guys for being calm and on topic. From now on, i ll stop reading what Lyria Skydancer posts on forums about anything. I gave her a chance that she maybe really after balance in Eve. Until i read the argument between Lyria vs Trigos Trilobi/Alek Row/Ariel Dawn/Dianeges and many others on page 11. She had nothing to say after all that wrecking logic. On any reasonable argument , If people beat me that hard, i swear i would apologize from the community and be gone forever. What a lame. I am sorry for her. :/ haq aan Omega



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.